Designing and Delivering

Blog 9: What aspects of the Engage phase do you feel most and least confident about?  

Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any.

Booth's Engage phase comprises designing materials and delivering instruction.  When I think about it, it's interesting that my confidence levels with each of these two aspects have swapped over the course of my teaching career.  When I began teaching so many years ago, I felt like I was on the cutting edge of technology.  Newly hired, I was one of few teachers in my department who was competent with computers.  While many of my colleagues were still using (believe it or not) mimeographed worksheets, I was creating word processed instructional materials that had more appeal and clarity for students.  I could even make a transparency of my materials for the overhead projector as a visual aid for my lectures.  Time has passed, of course, and the mimeographing teachers have retired and been replaced with younger, more tech savvy teachers, and I have had to work to keep up.

As tech tools became more and more accessible, I noticed that students appeared much more engaged with my colleagues' powerpoint presentations, prezis, and interactive apps than my transparency projector and handouts, and I knew I had to make the switch.  However, I have also realized that using technology to create instructional materials doesn't necessarily mean they are effective.  I have been guilty of overloading slides with too much information or not using very effective design, and I know that even if the presentation looks good, it doesn't necessarily mean that the material is well organized or clear.  I still work hard to incorporate the latest technology into my instructional design, but I also sometimes make the conscious choice to draw on the whiteboard instead of using my SmartBoard, or tell students to take out a pencil and paper instead of logging into their computer.

On the other hand, the aspect of delivering instruction has gotten easier over the years.  As a new and  inexperienced teacher (and not much older than my students), I lacked confidence and struggled to assert my authority over the class, and the class responded exactly the way you would expect a class to respond.  I had little control over or respect from my students.  After several really negative classroom experiences, I realized I had to create a more effective teaching persona.  Booth talks about the importance of being authentic, and I agree.  I am not super energetic, loud, or funny.  I wish, sometimes in front of the classroom, that I were.  I work with some "rock star" teachers who seem to have almost a cult of students who follow them.  I am not that person.  But, I am super passionate about my subject (aka "nerdy"), very mothering, and flexible.  And I make that work for me.  I'm not afraid to be "weird", and I can even crack my students up once in awhile.  I try to stay relevant (which is easier right now because my own children are the same age as my students), but also I assume that I'm not.  I have very few problems with discipline; I can't remember the last time I sent a student down to the office, and I truly credit finally having developed a solid teaching persona for that.

Letting Go of Content

Blog #8: What aspects of the Structure phase do you feel most and least confident about?
Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any.
Rachel McGee will be coming to class this week to talk about St. Mary's University's eBrarian initiative. What questions do you have for her about their program of online IL tutorials and research help?

The second phase of Booth's USER model is the "structure" stage.  In this step, you define what it is you want students to accomplish, then you create a plan for the strategies that you will use in the lesson.  Whether you call them goals, objectives, or outcomes, knowing what exactly you want students to do should inform all of your teaching strategies.  This is something with which I currently feel comfortable, but it has taken time and experience to get there.  When I first started teaching high school English, I admit I planned my units around the texts we would read, not the outcomes of what I wanted students to do.  "During this semester, students will read classic works of American Literature such as The Great Gatsby, Of Mice and Men, and The Scarlet Letter," for example.  I think many teachers operated, and some still do operate, this way.  Content and coverage guide unit and lesson planning instead of skills and knowledge.  This can be particularly true of courses in which teachers use a textbook they feel they must "get through."  Rushing through to finish the texts, chronology, etc. can sacrifice critical thinking and deep exploration of topics.

Of course it is impossible for teachers to introduce students to every great piece of literature ever written, every country's history, every philosophical movement, etc.  We always have to make choices. But it can be really, really hard, I know, to let go of content.  What if students never read Hamlet?  What if they don't study the Mexican-American war?  What if they never read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream Speech?"  We have to let it go and plan units around outcomes.  "During this semester, students will be able to compare and contrast the context, content, and style of a classic text with a modern text," or "Students will be able use critical lenses to explore gender, race, and social class in several texts from different countries," or "Using the archetypal lens, students will be able to analyze and evaluate story patterns in a variety of texts."  I now teach fewer texts, but we go deeper.  And I'm okay with that (but I still really want them to read Hamlet).

Now, as a new teacher of research instruction as a graduate assistant here at St. Kate's, I am definitely back to feeling I have to cover it ALL. But, there is simply no way to do this in an hour long session. Last Saturday in my Leadership class, librarians from MCTC came in to talk to us about their program. I was surprised that MCTC requires all students to take a semester long credit-bearing information literacy course that is taught by librarians.  In my opinion, this is the ideal.  A whole semester to teach these skills is appropriate and reasonable.  An hour long one shot session is not. However, that is all most of us have.  So, we have to prioritize and perform triage.  What skills and knowledge are most important for these particular students doing this particular assignment?  Of course, another blocking force is not knowing these particular students or even sometimes what the particular assignment is.  Building relationships and communicating with their teachers is paramount and yet I am realizing it often doesn't happen.  I am teaching a research session this afternoon, and though I have tried to reach out to the professor, I still have a limited understanding of what their assignment entails and where students are in the process.  It is not best practice, but I just have to do the best I can.

USER Stage 1: Understand

Learning Blog #7:  What aspects of the Understand phase do you feel most and least confident about? Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any. 

First of all, I love the way Char Booth sets up the chapter on her USER instructional design model.  As I mentioned in my last post, I, too, have seem my fair share of "instructional acronyms" and will admit, like Booth, to rolling my eyes at mention of another one.  When she states, "it is with only a small amount of irony that I present the USER method," I was at least willing to read on. I also really like her analogy of the ID model as a road map.  A good ID model should point you in the right direction, tell you where you will end up, but leave the specific route up to you.  The routes can and should vary depending on a myriad of factors: the schedule, the materials available, the students' abilities and needs, the physical space, even the teacher's mood, and the list goes on.  I think this is the part of teaching that comes with experience: the intuitiveness to know which route is best in any given situation, and the willingness (and ability) to change routes--even while in the middle of the journey.

The first step in Booth's USER map is to Understand.  She says we need to "investigate the learning scenario" by first, identifying the problem: what is the challenge the learners face, and how can we help them meet it; then, analyze the scenario in order to facilitate a positive experience.  The first task seems fairly simple at first glance--but boy, can it get complicated! In a high school at least, there are many, many standards educators have to help students meet.  At the recent MLA conference, I went to a session addressing Minnesota's Common Core ELA standards and how school library media specialists might incorporate these into their lessons.  Cory Stai from the MDE provided the history and philosophy behind these new standards and explained their vertical alignment, then Sara Swenson, the media specialist from Edina High School, shared some best practices.

Stai stated that one of the goals when creating the Common Core was to reduce the number of standards for students.  He also admitted they may have failed in meeting that goal.  There are over 43 standards students must meet.  And that's not all.  In addition to the CC standards, Minnesota has added several of its own, and on top of that, each school district adds more. When Swenson admitted that her school focuses on only a handful of these--what they call "power standards," Stai emphatically replied that this is not, in fact, best practice: the MDE expects us to teach ALL of the standards.  Well, I have to side with Swenson on this one.  Like students who freeze up when they encounter "information overload," teachers do too.  They have to do a bit of triage with all of the standards.  Determining what is most important for students to learn, and the best way to teach it: that's the real challenge for those of us working on the front lines every day.

Instructional Design

Blog #6: What are the essential considerations of the planning process? What are the differences between program, teaching, and student assessments? Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any.

Lesson planning.  Obviously, I know how to do it.  If I didn't, I couldn't have survived in my job for the past 22 years.  I would even say, having worked on many curriculum writing teams throughout my career, I know how to do it pretty well by now.  But, when Joyce asked the "teacher group" in class what we thought of the lesson plan template in our text book and whether we could suggest better alternatives, I wasn't sure what to say.  I do create formal, detailed lesson plans from time to time, mostly when I have formal observations for Q-Comp or PAS assessments.  The lesson plan format I use for these observations is solely dependent upon what my district requires at the moment.  When I started teaching it was a Madeline Hunter template, then came OBE (Outcome Based Education), then...well, I'm sure there were others whose names are escaping me at the moment.  Currently, we use the UBD (Understanding By Design) model which seems to work as well as anything else.

Though I don't know that any one template is significantly different or more effective than the others, and though I don't think it is necessary to write out entire lesson plans each and every day (who has that kind of time?!), I have learned that what is most effective is to determine the outcomes you desire first, then build your lessons around them. For instance, I am just finishing up teaching the play Henry V with my regular English 12 students.  What do I want students to be able to do?  1.  Gain strategies for reading a difficult text.  So, I built in some lectures and formative assessments in my unit plan to help them with that as we read.  2.  Think critically about the issues presented in a classic text and then make connections to other, more modern texts.  So, I built in some journals, discussions, and an essay to get them started thinking about ways in which the themes in the various texts we read might relate to each other.  3.  Appreciate Shakespeare, or at least approach his works without fear. So, I tried to build some fun, interactive, creative group assignments into my lessons as well.  I don't really care if they can write in iambic pentameter, if they know many details about Shakespeare's life, or even--I have to admit--if they have read every line of the play.  So, I didn't create lessons and/or assessments around those things.

It is easy, when teaching, to lose sight of the forest through the trees. To get caught up in the minute details of any one text or historical event or math problem. Or to insist students sit through a very long lecture about something in which I am interested (iambic pentameter, Shakespeare's life, and every line of Henry V), but that does not relate to any of the outcomes.  It means, sometimes, letting go of the things that don't matter as much and spending time and energy on those aspects that do. It also means thinking daily about how each and every activity relates to your final outcomes. The rest of lesson planning, then, will fall into place.  Yes, it helps to make sure you have an engaging anticipatory set (thanks, Madeline), that you have all the materials prepared ahead of time, that you provide a variety of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent work time, that you scaffold skills, provide alternative assessments for those who need it, etc., etc., etc.  But, really none of that matters much (well, besides just keeping students occupied) if you are not working towards a meaningful end.

Online Instruction and Tech Tools

Blog #5: What are the characteristics of good teaching? 
What are some types of online instruction?
What are some characteristics of effective online instruction?
Compare the advantages & disadvantages of online & face-to-face instruction? 
Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any.

I am not an "early adopter" of new technologies.  I had a flip phone for years after the iPhone came out, I hung on to my transparencies long after other teachers in my school had switched to powerpoint presentations, and I was one of the last to ditch my red gradebook and use the online grading software.  This doesn't mean, though, that I am anti-technology.  I now love my iPhone and couldn't imagine life without it; I use the online class management system Schoology and often "flip" lessons in my classes; and I Tweet and Facebook and Pin in both my personal and professional lives.  I like to think of myself, instead, as a "cautious adopter."  I'm happy to let others try technology out before I spend my precious time and energy (and sometimes money) learning something new that may or may not make my personal and professional lives better.

Good teaching is good teaching. Students are engaged, they are learning, discovering new ideas, practicing new skills.  This can happen with or without technology.  I found this article about Finland's schools interesting: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/finland-school-system-107137.html  According to the article, "With little educational technology in the classroom, Finnish students have repeatedly outperformed American students on international tests."  Instead of investing in the latest technology, the Finish government and the teachers' union spend their energy focusing on teacher training.  I cringe when I see the school district for which I work spend thousands of dollars on SmartBoards and then watch as many teachers, including myself, decide that they would actually rather just write on the board. And I worry about the new iPad initiative in St. Paul schools.  Every student will receive an iPad, and yet teachers have little or no training on how to incorporate them into their own lessons.  How many of initiatives like these directly lead to better teaching and learning?  Wouldn't all of that money be better spend on teacher training, smaller classes, etc.?

That said, I do feel that some technology tools do allow me to design my lessons better as a teacher, and enjoy my coursework more as a student.  D2L helps keep me organized, YouTube videos present information in a new way, blogs help build communities in my classes.  For me, though, where I learn the most is in face to face discussions and group work in class.  When deciding where to go to school for my MLIS, I thought carefully about whether I should choose an online program.  Certainly, they are more convenient.  But for me, that's where the list of advantages ended. Without face-to-face interaction, I knew I would not have the same opportunity to develop the relationships and depth of understanding that I have in this program.  The same is true for high school students.  Studies have shown that one of the most important aspects of teaching is the relationship building that occurs between teacher and student, something that is quite difficult to do well in an online course.  The success rate for these alternative courses is low, and for obvious reasons.  Students who did not do well in a regular high school often need more guidance and interaction with teachers, not less.

In Defense of Howard Gardner

Blog #4: What is your learning style? How do you think this will influence your teaching/facilitation? Is your teaching approach more akin to behaviorism, cognitivism, or constructivism?  Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any.  

While pursuing my teaching degree in the early 90s, I spent a lot of time thinking about Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences which posits that students learn and understand in different ways. Gardner lists (at least) seven types of intelligences: 1. Visual-Spatial; 2. Kinesthetic; 3. Musical; 4. Interpersonal; 5. Intrapersonal; 6. Linguistic; 7. Mathematical.  Then, as now, I found his theory interesting and useful.  Certainly, I could identify that my strengths were in the Linguistic and Interpersonal areas. And as I began teaching, I could see certain strengths in my students as well, and so I tried my best to individualize lessons to play to students' strengths when I could.
  
In my education courses, Gardner's intelligences and the term "learning styles" were synonymous.  I have never found any of this to be problematic until I was introduced to Daniel Willingham's emphatic claim that "learning styles do not exist!"  Interestingly, Gardner never intended for his multiple intelligences to be considered learning styles. Recently, he set the record straight in a recent Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/16/howard-gardner-multiple-intelligences-are-not-learning-styles/

In the article, Gardner claims there are two problems with the idea of learning styles.  One, he says those who use the term often do not "define the criteria for the style, nor where the styles come from, how they are recognized/assessed/ exploited."  Second, he agrees with Willingham that there is "not persuasive evidence that learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a 'one size fits all approach.'"  He also notes, though, that "the fact that one intervention did not work does not mean that the concept of learning styles is fatally flawed; another intervention might have proved effective.  Absence of evidence does not prove non-existence of a phenomenon."  

Certainly, I believe that claiming you can't learn math because it's not "your learning style" is bogus.  However, I do believe that some people naturally learn more easily or faster/are more interested in understanding mathematics than others. Regardless of whether we call them intelligences or learning styles, and regardless of Willingham's claims, my experience in the classroom tells me that: 
1. Students do have different natural strengths. 
2.  Students do have preferences in how they learn; material presented a particular way might click more easily than another.
3.  All of our senses work together to pick up information; what matters isn't how we receive it, but how we make sense of that information.

In the end, I think Gardner's advice is exactly right: Don't worry about whether or not "learning styles" exist, but do individualize your teaching as much as possible (easier to do with small classes, of course), and teach important material in several ways to deepen understanding.

Philosophy of Teaching and Learning

Blog #3:  What is your general philosophy of teaching and learning? How have your previous educational experiences affected your philosophy? What is critical thinking? What is reflective practice? Why are these important?  Describe an "aha" moment you had this week, if any. 

I've been wondering this week about whether my philosophy of teaching has evolved over the course of the past 22 years in the classroom.  In most ways, I've decided, it hasn't.  What I consider good teaching now is essentially the same as it has always been.  From when I was just 23 years old to now at 45, I  have always strived to be what Booth calls an authentic teacher.  When I am able to relate to students as fellow human beings, work cooperatively with colleagues, and improve my practice through official and unofficial professional development, I am happier, more confident, and I believe, more effective in the classroom.  And conversely, when I am not doing those things, I feel less successful.

There have been students over the years whom I just could not reach. From the student who insisted on hating English no matter what I tried, to the student whose parents felt that A- I gave her was a personal vendetta against their daughter, there have been challenges in "liking", and thus relating to certain students. There have been times, whether because of my schedule or the personalities of my colleagues when I didn't do much collaborating and felt isolated in my teaching.  And of course, life can get crazy and sometimes professional development takes a back seat to simply surviving day to day. In all of those cases, my teaching has suffered and my students' learning experiences were less than they could have been.  I think the main way in which I have changed is that I now truly know this about my practice; I know I have to work extra hard at times to "kill" certain students with kindness, to reach out to colleagues who are difficult to reach, and to carve out at least some time for my own learning.

Studies have found over and over that the relationships students have with their teachers is the single biggest factor in improving student achievement, and yet, I find that at least large public schools do little to foster those relationships.  Increasing class sizes, less time spent on pursuit of personal inquiry projects and more on standardized testing, and pressure for teachers to spend more and more time on data collection and other record keeping are not exactly encouraging positive relationships to be built among teachers and students.

During an internship at a small private school last year, I had an aha moment.  The teachers were able to spend time before school started in small groups with the counselors "getting to know" the individual students they would have that year.  The counselors shared data, stories about past successes and challenges, and even notes from parents while the teachers took copious notes.  During workshop week this year back at my large public high school, I spent quite a bit of time discussing how to manage students en masse: enforcing dress code and cell phone violations, etc.  It was a completely different approach, one influenced by the size of the student population, sure, but also the school's philosophy about what matters.